San Francisco Circumcision Ban

[ShyGuyInChicago]

In November voters in San Francisco will get to decide whether circumcision for males under age 18 will be banned except for medical reasons. This controversial because there are those who believe that the foreskin is valuable and that the decision to remove it should rest solely on its owner. Then there are those who believe that circumcision has health benefits and that parents should be able have their sons remove it if they so choose.

I believe that for the most part circumcision is needless and pointless and that doctors should discourage it. However, I do not think it should be banned because it is not very harmful at least in the long term. Lots of people also want ti done for religious and cultural reasons. While I agree that it is pointless there is not point in banning it since circumcision does little harm most of the time.

Sorry I was not paying attention to what I was doing. Can this be moved the right forum.

[scuba steve]

I personally think it's rather pointless, but should be allowed under the sole consent under the male owner, not the parents when their child is born.

Do you have a link for this?

[Commander Thor]

:arrow: Daily Chronicle

[AllThatYouDreamed]

I can't see this passing. Yes, it's kinda unnecessary surgery, but that's kinda equivalent to saying you can't give children a haircut until they're 3.
There's a risk of the kid getting hurt, but it's very low and generally pointless to try to enforce.

[Commander Thor]

I can't see this passing. Yes, it's kinda unnecessary surgery, but that's kinda equivalent to saying you can't give children a haircut until they're 3.
There's a risk of the kid getting hurt, but it's very low and generally pointless to try to enforce.

Flesh, blood vessels, and nerves are in no way even close to hair. So please don't even try to compare the two.


In response to the proposed ban, I honestly don't know where my opinion lies on this. If a parent is allowed to feed their child McDonalds every day, for every meal, and let them become super-obese and super-unhealthy, why can't they choose to further make choices that affect the kids body?
On the other hand, why can't the owner of the body choose what he wants done with his body?

[Perseus]

Flesh, blood vessels, and nerves are in no way even close to hair. So please don't even try to compare the two.


In response to the proposed ban, I honestly don't know where my opinion lies on this. If a parent is allowed to feed their child McDonalds every day, for every meal, and let them become super-obese and super-unhealthy, why can't they choose to further make choices that affect the kids body?
On the other hand, why can't the owner of the body choose what he wants done with his body?

18 doesn't make sense. You have teens on this forum who are under that age who decide they want to be circumcised. Being eighteen doesn't magically change whether or not you'll look it up to see if you want to be or not.

[Commander Thor]

18 doesn't make sense. You have teens on this forum who are under that age who decide they want to be circumcised. Being eighteen doesn't magically change whether or not you'll look it up to see if you want to be or not.

Yeah, having a general ban on it until a set age makes no sense.
If they're going to impose a ban on it, just make it a parental ban, if the kid wants it done at 13 or 14, by all means let him.

[AllThatYouDreamed]

Flesh, blood vessels, and nerves are in no way even close to hair. So please don't even try to compare the two.
Have you EVER tried to cut a child's hair?
They sqirm. a lot. And it's incredibly easy to cut their head.Nice risks there too...

[scuba steve]

Have you EVER tried to cut a child's hair?
They sqirm. a lot. And it's incredibly easy to cut their head.Nice risks there too...

If your scissors are big enough and sharp enough to cut the child's head to inflict the same amount of bodily harm as circumcision..... You may be doing it wrong.

[ItStOuGhEnOuGh4Us]

Well I think this is a BIG mistake. Honestly I am surprised it hasn't been challenged in court yet! This is clearly a matter of Separation of Church and State. Not to mention so many other laws this violates. What's next? They will enhance all fetus to ensure the "perfect San Fransisco Treat" lol Could not resist that line.
-Future Lawyer :P, there went my friends. lol

[Sith Lord 13]

This is clearly a matter of Separation of Church and State.

No more than a ban on polygamy is.

Not to mention so many other laws this violates.

Such as?

What's next? They will enhance all fetus to ensure the "perfect San Fransisco Treat" lol Could not resist that line.

Hunh?

[obiwan94]

It will never pass. It would be deemed against the constitution because some religions such as Judaism and Islam require it as part of their faith. The WHO is also currently recommending it to reduce HIV and other STIs so I don't see it going anywhere.

[Ryhanna]

Euhghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

There's nothing WRONG with being circumcised, but in my opinion, unless it's for medical reasons, it should be the males decision.

I was circumcised for medical reasons when I was younger, and I had no idea what was going on. If the doctors said they wanted to cut a part of my penis off NOW, I'd yelp like a hurt puppy. It's a decision that should be entirely up to the owner of the body part in question.

[Korashk]

It would be deemed against the constitution because some religions such as Judaism and Islam require it as part of their faith.
Not a legitimate issue. Infants aren't religious.

The WHO is also currently recommending it to reduce HIV and other STIs so I don't see it going anywhere.
But it doesn't, at least not HIV.

[Neverender]

Euhghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

There's nothing WRONG with being circumcised, but in my opinion, unless it's for medical reasons, it should be the males decision.

I was circumcised for medical reasons when I was younger, and I had no idea what was going on. If the doctors said they wanted to cut a part of my penis off NOW, I'd yelp like a hurt puppy. It's a decision that should be entirely up to the owner of the body part in question.

The law SHOULD say, It's illegal to circumcise a child without their legal consent. Children can't give consent until they're 18. So it become the childs decision whether they want their genitals mutilated or not. Foreskin is there for a reason. and 1 in 500 babies die during the procedure.

[Pancakes]

Agreed it should be the mother/father/or males decision that's not right to ban that.

[RoseyCadaver]

I think it's peoples' body parts,it should their mother fucking choice!It pisses me off the way parents act like it's nothing and that there are "benefits" to chopping of something mother nature gave you.

Fun Fact did you know this started out as a punishment,then religion start doing it saying it's a sacrifice for your God.

[embers]

The law SHOULD say, It's illegal to circumcise a child without their legal consent. Children can't give consent until they're 18. So it become the childs decision whether they want their genitals mutilated or not. Foreskin is there for a reason. and 1 in 500 babies die during the procedure.

Children can't give consent until 18, therefore it's the parent's decision on whether they want to have it done or not. Whether that decision is 'morally' right or not is an argument of subjectivity and will never be won.

Also, can I see a source on that?

[EON-]

http://tinyurl.com/5tcaqln

Good for California, parents should not have the right to get infants' sex organs mutilated for non-medical/religious reasons.

[Ryhanna]

The law SHOULD say, It's illegal to circumcise a child without their legal consent. Children can't give consent until they're 18. So it become the childs decision whether they want their genitals mutilated or not. Foreskin is there for a reason. and 1 in 500 babies die during the procedure.

PREACH. :yes:

[Xjam360]

I think they should just leave it- like every other state. It's a personal decision and I think it should stay that way.

[Tiberius]

Banning this would effectively be the same as banning a parent from consenting for their child to have their wisdom teeth removed or any surgery that isn't required to keep the child living. It's just a procedure that has preventative purposes( according to The World Health Organization) to increase the quality of life, not to mention the religious aspects of this.